What good is economic justice, if I don't have the social justice to access and keep it?

[sheshe2]

**Asking for a friend**

===================================

Please, before answering google "The end of Reconstruction"

Here are a few thoughts.

======================================

End of Reconstruction

The end of Reconstruction returned control of the government in the South to the white southerners who promptly disenfranchised African-Americans.

snip

The period of Reconstruction continues to be disputed by historians today. One view considers Reconstruction to have been an opportunity lost. Instead of working to heal the wounds, it caused greater rifts between the South and the North, by imposing Northern rule on the South without dealing with the underlying social and economic problems.

The other school of thought states that the racism of the South would not allow Reconstruction to succeed. This racism insured that, once federal troops were no longer available to protect the rights of blacks, these rights would be immediately eliminated.

In 1882, Ex-slave Frederick Douglass probably put it best when he wrote: "Though slavery was abolished, the wrongs of my people were not ended. Though they were slaves, they were not yet quite free. No man can be truly free whose liberty is dependent upon the thoughts, feeling, and actions of others, and who has himself no means in his own hands for guarding, protecting, defending, and maintaining that liberty. Yet the Negro after his emancipation was precisely in this state of destitution. He was free from the individual master but the slave of society. He had neither money, property, nor friends. He was free from the old plantation, but he had nothing but the dusty road under his feet. He was free from the old quarter that once gave him shelter, but a slave to the rains of summer and the frost of winter. He was in a word, literally tuned loose, naked, hungry, and destitute to the open sky."

http://www.historycentral.com/rec/EndofRec.html

===================================

Then there was this long after the Emancipation Proclamation.

===================================



The Age of Neo-Slavery

In this groundbreaking historical expose, Douglas A. Blackmon brings to light one of the most shameful chapters in American history—when a cynical new form of slavery was resurrected from the ashes of the Civil War and re-imposed on hundreds of thousands of African-Americans until the dawn of World War II.

Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible “debts,” prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations—including U.S. Steel Corp.—looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of "free" black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.

The neoslavery system exploited legal loopholes and federal policies which discouraged prosecution of whites for continuing to hold black workers against their wills. As it poured millions of dollars into southern government treasuries, the new slavery also became a key instrument in the terrorization of African Americans seeking full participation in the U.S. political system.

Based on a vast record of original documents and personal narratives, SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME unearths the lost stories of slaves and their descendants who journeyed into freedom after the Emancipation Proclamation and then back into the shadow of involuntary servitude. It also reveals the stories of those who fought unsuccessfully against the re-emergence of human labor trafficking, the modern companies that profited most from neoslavery, and the system’s final demise in the 1940s, partly due to fears of enemy propaganda about American racial abuse at the beginning of World War II.

SLAVERY BY ANOTHER NAME is a moving, sobering account of a little-known crime against African Americans, and the insidious legacy of racism that reverberates today.

http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/the-book/

=================================

[MineralMan]

1. Exactly. Economic Justice that cannot be accessed

is no justice at all. For far too many people, the concept of economic justice is empty, since it will not apply to them. Social justice includes economic justice or it does not exist. Economic justice does not necessarily include social justice. A black or Hispanic man who earns a living wage, but who is arrested and jailed for driving in the wrong area of town may have economic justice, but no social justice, and economics will not help him.

Thanks for your post!

[sheshe2]

2. + 1000

Thank you very much, MM.

[YCHDT]

9. +++++ "Economic justice does not necessarily include social justice."+++++ I think some are

... thinking they're one in the same

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. Part of the flaw of the Sanders campaign was focusing

almost exclusively on economic justice issues and ignoring social justice, as though economics would somehow override prejudice and bigotry. That has never been and never will be true.

[MineralMan]

14. He minimized the importance of social justice, in favor of

a focus on economic justice. I was watching, too, as were members of groups who have been denied social justice for so long.

You do not get to tell me what happened. Sorry. I've been around all along. I observed everything.

[kristopher]

16. No, he didn't. But you were certainly shouting that meme from the rooftops.

[YCHDT]

20. Yes he did ... even afterwards mentioning we shouldn't be so PC or some shit

[JHan]

24. stop rewriting history, I saw and heard it all myself.

[bettyellen]

29. Not only are you refightig the primary, but you're rewriting history

In order to paint the majority of Dems in a bad light. Way to go.

[Hekate]

55. Nobody shouts it as loudly as Sanders himself (note present tense). We all saw what we saw...

...and we all see what we see.

[redgreenandblue]

108. No he didn't. It was a lie, and one that probably helped Trump win. nt

[melman]

109. Not probably

Definitely. And they know it. That's why they continue with this bullshit over half a year later.

[Demsrule86]

111. He wasn't the candidate ...except for endorsing and supporitng Sen. Clinton his opinions

were meaningless in the general.

[mcar]

46. It was sad and frustrating to see that then

And even more so to see it continue. The BoBers on Twitter have been making their flawed argument to some of our dear AA DUers. SMH.

[MineralMan]

130. I see. Thanks, and welcome to DU.

I hope to hear more from you.

[MineralMan]

137. Well, I guess it's not to be...

[fleabiscuit]

39. IMHO that is incorrect, they are bound together. nt

[YCHDT]

105. One can be had without the other, ask a rich POC

[Demsrule86]

112. To assume that anyone who earns a good living denied someone else economic justice is ridiculous.

And why shouldn't POC try to succeed or anyone for that matter...we are talking about the deck being stacked against POC, women, LGBTQ , the poor also these days and of course the GOP scapegoated Transgender community. If any of these individuals in what has become persecuted communities beats the odds and makes it financially ...good for them. The idea of social justice is to level the playing field...your comment is disturbing in that you single out POC...I am sure you didn't intend it this way but it sounds like white privilege.

[YCHDT]

118. I'm not excluding other social minorities just I know PoC who are well off and it doesn't ...

... matter that they are weil off they're still being discriminated against and not given equal access because of social issues.

They have economic means and it still doesn't matter in regards to equal access.

There's no economic just without social just first ... I don't see it happening.

[Demsrule86]

119. We agree then. We need both. I misunderstood your post. Sorry.

[lunasun]

3. Rec rec rec rec rec

That's one for each member of my immediate family that knows this first hand

[kristopher]

4. Handing control over the economy to the 1% is the best route to racial equality.

Absolutely, undoubtedly and unreservedly agree that acting as if politics isn't first and foremost about economic control is the most direct route to racial equality.

[sheshe2]

6. Kindly point out where in my OP that I suggest...

======================
"Handing control over the economy to the 1% is the best route to racial equality."

"Absolutely, undoubtedly and unreservedly agree that acting as if politics isn't first and foremost about economic control is the most direct route to racial equality."
======================

Your comments have nothing to do with my OP.

[YCHDT]

7. Having unequal access to the economy ... IS ... handing it over to the 1% just in another name

[Demsrule86]

113. Unequal access is often caused by bigotry. Social justice issues

level the playing field and will lower inequality. We need both. What you describe sounds like socialism...I don't believe in that.

[YCHDT]

116. Yes, we need both but not economic equality first ... that's illogical given reality of PoC who

... are rich and still discriminated against therefore they don't have access to economic equality they should have.

[Demsrule86]

120. I agree with you...Roosevelt as I pointed out did much to lower income inequality but it was

meaningless to POC who were not invited to the table. And an even better example is the interment of Japanese Americans who had their possession stolen and not returned until Carter's presidency. Income equality without social justice is meaningless.

[YCHDT]

134. Japanese internment is an excellent example

[Demsrule86]

135. It really is...they had pretty decent assets but lost them all due to bigotry....and many never got

them back...they were dead by the time Carter tried to fix this.

[YCHDT]

5. So true !!! If the economic equality can just be confiscated what good is it !?!?

[sheshe2]

12. Or the re-enslavement of human beings...

decades after the Emancipation denied them any chance of justice and no amount of money in the world could have stopped the trumped up charges that put them back into slavery.

[YCHDT]

21. Very good example

[whathehell]

31. If you have "equality" but you're dirt poor, what good is THAT?

[Demsrule86]

114. You have to have both...without social equality, you won't share in economic equality...for example

during the new deal white men were lifted up but not POC or unfortunate women who's husbands walked out. Thus the benefits of an improving economy were denied to folks based on bigotry...so they could not share the economic benefits. Thus without social justice, economic justice cannot be shared by all. You need both.

[smirkymonkey]

8. K&R

[Nevernose]

15. DoBois' "Black Reconstruction"

He (and many other civil rights leaders) might argue that you're creating an artificial distinction and that economic justice is merely a subset of social justice.

It's all the same thing, and advocating for one does not take away from another (unless one is trying to woo racist white Trump voters, in which case one is stupid).

Racial justice will inevitably lead to economic justice, but the inverse should also be true: strong unions and a strong middle class have done a good deal for the marginalized among us, and "really fucking poor" is yet another marginalized group.

I guess what maybe needs to be taken into account are the motives of those seeking economic justice; I know my Twitter feed and real life social circles are filled with PoC-Marxists, people who draw little distinction between the issues. In the rest of the world, socialist and quasi-Marxist movements are alive and well, and driven entirely by people of color.

[sheshe2]

18. Economic and social justice go hand in hand, but are clearly not the same.

If you do not have the means to hold on to your economic justice due to not being allowed access to social justice then it becomes a moot point. During the re-enslavement, many men were being picked up on trumped up charges like 'vagrancy', when all they were doing is walking to and from their jobs as freemen. They were then jailed and 'leased' out, leased.. being a kinder word than slavery. So you see, they had a job and economic justice, yet that was all taking away from them when they were denied their right to the social justice that is freedom.

[whathehell]

40. In the days of Reconstruction, you did not have the means

to hold onto your economic situation, but that was over a century ago, long before Civil Rights became law.
This isn't to say that things are "all ok" now, but we are far from the time when, except for highly illegal trafficking situations,
people are picked up and "leased out. That's of another era.

[brer cat]

64. We learned the contrary during the protests

following the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The city and many others in Missouri and other areas across the country were charging harsh even illegal fees and fines for non-violent crimes then issuing warrants or arresting people when they couldn't pay. They lose their jobs, their automobiles, the means to travel to obtain other employment, i.e., the means to hold onto their economic situation. While they might not be "leased out" they are living in servitude to the courts. You may want to pretend that such is of another era, but it is today and it is still happening. The people caught in these traps, among others, will never have economic equality without social justice.

[sheshe2]

83. Our past. Our Present.

I hope it will not be our future, brer.

Thanks brer.

[JHan]

84. ++++++++++++++++ well said

[whathehell]

90. I'm not pretending.anything..

and no one I know or have encountered is calling for pursuit of economic justice alone -- It's not an "either or" situation, it's a "both and"situation,".

[sheshe2]

68. Try reading: Slavery By Another Name

You will see the parallels from what happened over a century ago with what is STILL happening today. See Ferguson and the money machine they had/have going.

==================================

*The 6 most damning findings from the DOJ's report on racism in the city of Ferguson*

The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has released the horrifying details of its investigation of the Ferguson, Missouri, police department and municipal courts system, finding that officials in the St. Louis suburb routinely violated the constitutional rights of African-American residents.

The report is the result of an investigation that began in September 2014, after former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white, shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old. The failure to arrest Wilson — and the militarized response to protestors who demanded an indictment — set off months of demonstrations against racial disparities in police use of force and the criminal justice system.

snip

To get to the bottom of the distrust between the FPD and black Ferguson residents that provided a backdrop for the protests, Justice Department representatives conducted hundreds of interviews with city and court officials, observed Ferguson Municipal Court proceedings, attended community meetings, and scoured police records and data on police searches, stops, and arrests to collect the data.

The damning evidence uncovered leaves no question that the distrust and allegations of police racism were accurate. Here are the report's most outrageous findings:

Read More: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/4/8149337/doj-ferguson-report-police-racism
==================================

Please do not tell me that is does not exist today, because it most certainly does.

******you mentioned civil rights?*****

============================

Ferguson Shows Blacks Live in a Different America
Black Americans still live in a country with different rules, different dangers, and different rewards.

Fifty years ago this summer, President Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Back then, it was reasonable to expect that by 2014, America would be a fully integrated nation in which equality prevailed. But as the events in Ferguson, Mo., dramatize, the country still resembles what a presidential commission described in 1968: "two societies, one black, one white— separate and unequal."

snip

Even after the major civil rights laws were passed, blacks faced discrimination by real estate agents and lenders. Just two years ago, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $175 million to settle a Justice Department complaint that it pushed black homebuyers into subprime mortgages even when they qualified for regular loans.

There is persistent racial bias in hiring. A 2009 study in the American Sociological Review found that "black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison." Criminal justice is rigged: Blacks make up 14 percent of drug users but more than a third of those imprisoned on drug charges.

Many whites doubt that discrimination matters anymore because there are laws against it and because they personally don't engage in it. They see that many blacks have ascended to the middle class. They assume what holds blacks down are pathologies rampant in many poor minority neighborhoods: criminality and family breakdown.

More: http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/18/ferguson-shows-blacks-live-in-a-differen

[JHan]

85. the killer is..

that's from reason.com. Hell even some libertarians acknowledge this yet you still have "liberals" feigning innocence.

[sheshe2]

86. I didn't realize reason.com was Libertarian...

and they get it? Sad when we don't.

[JHan]

87. Yes...

Just bear in mind their stuff has a bent to it- I still enjoy the occasional article from them - but I'm always mindful of their editorial stance.

criminal justice reform has been a big concern for some libertarians for decades.

[whathehell]

88. I don't think anyone,

myself included, is saying that racism doesn't persist, or that it has no economic impact, but to say it indicates the futility of pursuing economic, as well as social justice, still makes no sense to me..

[sheshe2]

92. Yet no one here is saying not to pursue economic justice.

They are saying it will go hand in hand yet economic justice for all will never happen if social justice is not applied to all. For an example, raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and a woman will still be denied social justice because a man will still be paid more than a woman.

[whathehell]

94. And again, no one here is saying not to pursue social justice..

so I:m not understanding the furor here over it's inclusion.

[sheshe2]

96. Yet it is not the one at the forefront.

[whathehell]

99. I'm not sure what makes you say that..

as I honestly don't see it...To me, it is and has been as long as I've been politically conscious, which is since the early 1960's..

In my view, there IS no Democratic party without a strong civil rights focus.

[melman]

110. This thread

is meant to bash You Know Who. That's it's only purpose.


It's just a replay of the infamous 'Not Good Enough' thread.

[whathehell]

133. Yeah..I think you may be right..

I never understood the rabid hatred of Bernie by some here. Fwiw, I never got the hatred of Hillary by the "Bros" eiither...I voted Bernie in the primaries and Hillary in the General.

I actually don't remember the not good enough" thread, although I seem to recall the sentiment.

[Demsrule86]

115. some here have opined that economic justice is more important than social justice which

has been described as a wedge issue. The argument was particularly relevant to the endorsement of Mello in Nebraska.

[kcr]

121. Oh, well no on HERE says it, so no big deal /sarcasm

For one thing DUers have a fine way of saying things the DU way to avoid hides. So, they won't say things like Social Justice Warriors the way they would outside of DU. But they'll find creative ways of saying the same thing. Especially during the primaries, it got really ugly. Your contention that no one here is saying not to pursue social justice just shows that you're blind to some things.

[whathehell]

131. No one I know or know OF....How's that?

If it's still a problem for you, maybe you should just TELL us
who "not here" you are blaming. Seriously. It's so much more helpful than just spouting off random, misdirected anger.


..

[Demsrule86]

136. Read this thread...there are post that reflect the view that economics trump social justice right

here.

[fleabiscuit]

107. 'Right-to-Work'

[whathehell]

132. "Right to work"...What about it?

[YCHDT]

117. No, this is happening RIGHT NOW today !!! There's no equality in us justice system NOT AT ALL

[Nevernose]

72. But that's what I'm trying to say:

"If you do not have the means to hold on to your economic justice due to not being allowed access to social justice then it becomes a moot point"

I believe that the difference between economic and social justice is artificial, that economic justice is a subset of social justice, just another type of civil right. It's the same thing.

For instance, what good is the right to choose an abortion if one cannot afford the procedure? Of what use is the right to vote if one cannot afford to take the day off from one's two-and-a-half jobs to exercise it? Of what use is a law preventing workplace discrimination against trans people if there isn't a job for that person to go to? Of what use is freedom of religion if one is live no n their car? Isn't one of the first things to come up in a discussion about feminism the glass ceiling and pay disparity? (Insert MLK and Malcolm X quotes about affording to eat at the lunch counter here )

I think one of the problems that we -- liberals -- get into sometimes is comparing oppression as f it were a competition. You can clearly come up with counter examples to everything in my previous paragraph, and then I could do the same, ad infinitum. But it's not a competition. Saying "don't let economic justice interfere with social justice" seems, to me at least, no different than saying "don't let feminism interfere with my racial justice" or "don't let GLBTQ rights interfere with my feminism."

There are, indeed, people out there who believe that their particular social justice interest outweighs all others, and I would be lying if I didn't say that socialist-types tend to harp on economic issues. However, I also think it's unfair to then try and separate that issue from the others. Economics are part of the intersection, and it seems like many people would prefer to ignore economics in favor of whatever their "pet" issue is ("pet issue" is an insulting term, but I can't come up with anything better right now), and vice versa. We can't let extremists from either or any liberal extreme divide us.

I also think that you and me and most legit DUers are probably in total agreement on most of these social justice issues, and our disagreements are more about style and salesmanship. Shalom!

[sheshe2]

102. Quote:

=============================

I think one of the problems that we -- liberals -- get into sometimes is comparing oppression as f it were a competition. You can clearly come up with counter examples to everything in my previous paragraph, and then I could do the same, ad infinitum. But it's not a competition. Saying "don't let economic justice interfere with social justice" seems, to me at least, no different than saying "don't let feminism interfere with my racial justice" or "don't let GLBTQ rights interfere with my feminism."

=================================
My thoughts

*I for one am concerned with all issues of those of us that are marginalized. I don't see it as competition it is about all marginalized groups working with each other. This is not about one it is about all of us standing together AS one. Do you think the women's march was just about women? I was in Boston and there were men and boys, uncles, fathers, LGBT and BLM walking with us. Unity and solidarity for a cause.*

================================
Quote

There are, indeed, people out there who believe that their particular social justice interest outweighs all others, and I would be lying if I didn't say that socialist-types tend to harp on economic issues. However, I also think it's unfair to then try and separate that issue from the others. Economics are part of the intersection, and it seems like many people would prefer to ignore economics in favor of whatever their "pet" issue is ("pet issue" is an insulting term, but I can't come up with anything better right now), and vice versa. We can't let extremists from either or any liberal extreme divide us.

==============================
Me:
Social and Economic are two very different topics. They are not one in the same.


You said...

"Economics are part of the intersection, and it seems like many people would prefer to ignore economics in favor of whatever their "pet" issue is ("pet issue" is an insulting term, but I can't come up with anything better right now), and vice versa."

=============================
Me:

Social Justice and equality is a 'pet issue'? I think you should have chosen your words wisely and you did not. You admit it is an insulting term and it is! Yet you use it here about marginalized people.

Miriam's Dictionary:

Definition of pet
1
a :  a pampered and usually spoiled child
b :  a person who is treated with unusual kindness or consideration :  darling
2
:  a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pet

**************I am going to say here, our concerns about racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia are not now or ever have been pet issues.*************

[YCHDT]

19. The inverse is 100% ... NOT ... true at all empirically or by simple logic. One can be a billionaire

... and still be socially discriminated against.

I have Hawaii as prime example of rich people who are white and discriminated against socially

[Nevernose]

74. Tell that to Susan Sarandon and Cornel West

Who, despite being in categories that are frequently discriminated against, have the economic privilege to around getting Trump elected.

The inverse is true because there are many kinds of social justice, and economic & racial are just two kinds. It's not an oppression contest, and if it were, most people fall into multiple categories.

[irisblue]

17. Sheshe thank you for this article.

❤🙌👍👏

[Jamaal510]

22. K&R

[sheshe2]

23. Thank you Jamaal.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

25. "Slavery by Another Name"

This is an outstanding book. I read it five years ago. I cannot recommend it too highly (by which I mean that there is no limit on how much I recommend it, not that I don't think much of it at all. It's one of those weird English things).

Douglas A. Blackmon

Douglas Blackmon was the Atlanta bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. He is now at the University of Virginia's Miller Center.

Anyway, the book is an eye-opener. I urge you to read it.

[sheshe2]

30. I am over half way through it now.

It should be required reading. Blackmon did an outstanding job researching the book and telling so many lost stories about our shameful history.

[Me.]

26. Excellent Question & OP

What comes to my mind are people, primarily black, who are arrested for a minor infraction, say jaywalking or a traffic issue and languish in jail because they can’t pay the fine of a few dollars, or those who can’t post a bond for the same reason. While there, they lose their jobs, the jail time is often on their records, their family suffers, despair & depression set in, a downward spiral begins and there is no recourse or remedy to be had. In a few places, this matter is being addressed but not enough. And it’s not just the south. Rikers Island (NYC) is as guilty as any Alabama jail.

[sheshe2]

33. Well said me.

It was our past present and hopefully not our future for this kind of round up. It was a money maker during reconstruction and thrives today in our police and courts...ie Ferguson and more.

[JHan]

27. Yes yes yes yes! and...

Similarly when a woman's reproductive choices are limited, it affects* the mating dynamic and her independence.

Attitudes shape how resources are shared and whether you are able to enjoy the freedom to pursue happiness, it's really that simple and always has been.

it isn't complicated.

thank you for this sheshe.. big time..

[sheshe2]

35. Yes, JHan...

This exactly.

Quote...
===============================

"Attitudes shape how resources are shared and whether you are able to enjoy the freedom to pursue happiness, it's really that simple and always has been.

it isn't complicated."

===================================

Thanks

[Me.]

41. Plus

The cost of raising a child you can't afford to feed

[sheshe2]

61. Let alone get affordable heath care for them thanks to the GOP's

Attempt to dismantle and repeal the Affordable Care Act

[Me.]

62. Precisely

“The USDA projects that, in 2015 dollars, a middle class married couple will spend between about $12,400 and $14,000 annually, or $234,000 from birth to age 17. Those calculations don't include pregnancy- or college-related costs. In 2014, the estimate was about $245,000.Jan 11, 2017”

[mcar]

28. K&R

[Lucky Luciano]

32. There is no economic justice without social justice, so the question is a contradiction.

While I would not consider the concepts equivalent, they are mutually dependent on each other.

[boston bean]

91. Not tru for every person. There can be econ justice for some. While social justice lags and keeps

Others down.

That is why social justice for all must come first then and only then can true econ justice be had for all.

[Lucky Luciano]

98. If others are being kept down, then I doubt there is economic justice.

Even if there is a wealthy POC who has at least gotten economic justice (though you can argue that the wealth was harder than it should have been for them to get in some cases), the fact that POC are kept down from a social justice point of view (e.g. Our wealthy POC getting harassed by police) will imply that other people in their group are being oppressed economically.

[Hekate]

43. Any further thoughts, scerderbler? nt

[Hekate]

56. And how is this "onward to the past," scerbderbler?

I don't use Auro-correct, though what it would have made of your handle I cannot begin to imagine. For me it's one of the hazards of a small screen.

[sheshe2]

70. ????

Everything explained and Onward to the past?

Hmmm.

[Hekate]

80. Heh

[sheshe2]

82. Ya

[Hortensis]

58. Oh, is there something that explains everything then,

just not this? Glad you came. I'd just about given up looking for a simple answer to all questions of equality and inequality that wouldn't overtax my ability to understand.

[johnp3907]

65. This post explains everything we need to know about YOU.

[LexVegas]

36. Truth. nt

[Quayblue]

37. K&R sheshe nt

[DesertRat]

38. K&R

[Hekate]

42. KnR, sheshe. Social justice is not embedded in economic justice, nor does it follow from it...

The more ways this gets talked about, the better.

I instinctively always knew that. Real people (including women-people) get left out of the idealistic equation.

[JCanete]

47. it doesn't follow from it directly, but you can't pretend that in a world where people are

limbically stimulated by fears of losing their livelihoods, that they aren't more prone to racist rhetoric. They are looking for a reason for their uncertainty and struggles, and people are giving it to them, while we refuse to give them a far better, actually accurate enemy to their wellbeing. Why is it so hard to accept that we need the economic message to go hand-in-hand with the social message?

[Hekate]

52. Why is it so hard to accept that we need the social justice message to lead the...

... economic message by the hand?

Certainly I want lady lawyers to be paid the same as their male counterparts, but if they lose their jobs or are demoted for having a baby, where's the justice in that? Certainly I want the (mostly male) groundskeepers at the University to be paid a living wage for laboring in the hot sun, but should the (nearly all female) secretary/admin assistant whose min quals include operating sophisticated equipment, having a college background, and in some cases being fluently bilingual, be paid exactly the same? (True story) Or maybe more?

What does a living wage do for a person of color if they can't get an equitable mortgage and move to a better school district?

What does a living wage do for a woman of any color in Texas if all the family planning/women's health clinics have been closed down, her access to contraception denied, and her chances of dying in childbirth or shortly after soar to Third World levels? (True story)

These issues all go hand in hand with social justice, or the economic justice fight goes nowhere.

[JCanete]

63. we agree they go hand and hand. The reason you don't solely lead with the social justice is

because it isn't as effective for the social justice message, but you certainly can't and SHOULD NOT bury it, nor should it be secondary. But you can't make the economic message secondary either because the social justice element will be misconstrued and misrepresented, and we'll continue to have a class proxy war over social issues. Because class is the thing that is driving the money, for the most part. We have to make money's influence the enemy. We have to make corporate and rich interests that depress wages, the enemy, so that their efforts to divide and conquer with it on social division become more and more transparent to the American people.

[kcr]

124. You have it backwards. You can't pretend that economic equality will erase social injustice.

If there were a direct and total causal link, then there would be no such thing as bigoted wealthy people. It may be true that economic insecurity can exacerbate social inequality, but economic suffering makes a lot of bad things worse.

[JCanete]

127. I didn't say it would, but I did suggest that fighting back in this class war, if we use the right

messaging, CAN dis-arm the rhetoric that attempts to blame people of color and immigrants for some people's angst and hardship. There is a lot of a-priori misconception built into racism for a lot of people. Yeah, when you move up the chain of economics, people hold onto their bigotry often enough because it helps them to justify their wealth amidst poverty, but in the middle class and lower class, the issues right now are of what people are losing and who they are willing to blame for it, and who right wing media is telling them to blame for it. If we tell them who they really need to blame for it, and if we keep pounding how they are being played by divisive rhetoric by people laughing their asses off to the bank...and if we show them an actual alternative...they may just try it.

It isn't everything. Of course it isn't. And we don't have to and SHOULD NOT, as I've already said, try this first and then introduce the social equality issues...that is not an acceptable nor effective path. If you already accept that economic suffering entrenches these things, then you have to admit that the way out of this quagmire is to address these issues hand in hand, especially since they are so intertwined. You can't leave the economic message out any more than you can leave the social justice message out.


And if you think anything is a more powerful force than the money, I totally disagree. Money makes changing one's mind possible. People with money who want to keep it, or steal or amass more "legitimately" etc. ultimately don't get so caught up on race...not overall. It is astonishing just how malleable people's beliefs can be if one belief is superior to one previously held, when it comes to the green. Yes, some are deeply bigoted. There may even be a number of them who's whole identity is defined by their racism and no money is worth abandoning that for them....but for the most part, racism is awesome to them because it creates whole populations of exploitable people that nobody defends or watchdogs for. On top of that, they are the perfect scapegoat or excuse for all kinds of power and money grabs.

If we don't rail against the machinery...if we don't tell people to look behind the curtain, we will never undo this.

[sheshe2]

75. That we do Hekate

" Real people (including women-people) get left out of the idealistic equation."

...yes, Social Justice needs to be talked about. It is not something that can be swept back under the rug. I am staying front and forward in that equation and will defend anyone's attempt to find the justice we all so badly need. I am talking about all of us and not just women. I, as a woman refuse to be pushed under the bus again. Refuse to have my head patted and told to wait my turn.

RESIST TOGETHER AS ONE!

[Hekate]

78. That bit about getting patted on the head and being told to wait our turn got reeeeeeeal old...

...quite a few decades ago. At my advanced age I can by now see that rationale coming a mile away, and I'm done with it.

[sheshe2]

97. Sadly some still live decades ago.

Yup. I am so over it as well, Hekate.

[JCanete]

45. no good. Can you though, present a scenario where you get social justice without addressing

the economic side of things? That's the fucking point. You can't expect, while everybody's lives are getting harder, for the worst messaging that prays on the fears of people losing their shirts not to take hold. What environments do you see, that historically move their nation towards social justice? Economically depressed pre-Nazi Germany? Russia today?

We need to put ourselves on the same side of this issue....show people that their scapegoating of immigrants and poor people and people of color, etc. is unfounded and irrational, and that they have a common enemy. Give them the fucking common enemy already, and lets quit being divided and conquered.

What good is not addressing the economic issue, if it is only going to exasperate social inequality?

Neither of these sides of the same coin can be ignored. Lets stop pretending it is one or the other.

[JHan]

48. the way you show people...

that scapegoating immigrants and the poor and people of color is by addressing social justice issues.

you should not be dismissive of a very substantive post. I have never heard such a nonsensical division of issues till last year - always I understood that social justice and economic justice are inextricably intertwined. It is not enough to claim you will raise the minumum wage by two or three or four or five or six or seven or whatever dollars if there exists the preying on poor people in the criminal justice system, it doesn't make sense talking about equal pay for women if you don't address attitudes that prevent a woman having full choice over what to do with her body...

This attempt to divide issues - giving economic justice primacy over social justice thereby causing a division between the two - is stupid.

EDIT: It is a false dichotomy, it's an attempt to divide, and I despise the rhetoric that enables it because it makes us weaker.

[JCanete]

50. but who is doing this? The closest thing you have to suggesting that this is a liberal tendency is

that Sanders, I think wrongly by the way, endorsed candidates who have histories on women's rights that are unacceptable, although they had both certainly promised they would perform differently going forwards...that's a hard sell, and was certainly a divisive choice by Sanders.

In fact, the thing I found most promising about Sanders popularity was that he has always been ahead of the curve on social justice and he was pulling people from across the spectrum. Here was this populist socialist getting people to vote for a candidate who did not mince words on whether or not "black lives matter." Some of his supporters were more conservative voters who overlooked these stances on social justice because something about the message still resonated. That's an in. That's a way to get them to stop retreating into their biases and starting to see that they need their diverse brothers and sisters.

I'm not being dismissive of the post. You can't simply address social justice issues as if there isn't a whole machine behind keeping them the way they are and making them worse. You have to disrupt that machinery. That machinery is fed by people who are terrified of bullshit, and the way to disrupt that is not to tell them that they are wrong and bad...but to tell them that they are being played and that we have an answer that will actually make their lives better...AGAIN, that we have an enemy for them that they can sink their teeth into, and actually come out of it with some sustenance.

[JHan]

57. reposting my reply:

because it was all over the place..

So I get the sense you're suggesting that we not get them people who aren't here for social justice issues too angry

"The way to disrupt that is not to tell that they are wrong and bad" - Societies fall back on "wrong" and "Bad" attitudes when people are fearful, pointing out deplorable attitudes that are "Wrong" and "bad" when they fall into this trap is not the problem.

And these folks in question get played by racists because these attitudes have been nurtured for centuries. The flavor of their resentments have not changed with time. We owe it to ourselves to point out the bullshit, and I hope Democrats understand that they owe it to their base and people who consistently vote for them, to articulate these issues in a clear and concise way.

Whether it's your intent or not, you have decided that it is more important to sympathize with people who don't care about social justice issues for fear of offense, a position which lacks courage.

I am able to empathize with people who don't care about the issues that confront people who look like me - I know exactly how they view the world. You can talk about how wrong their views are while pointing out to them the way their cognitive errors and value judgments harm them in the long run.

And I don't put politicians on pedestals ...I don't hero worship people. I am not keen on those who only propose problems and never try to solve or grapple with them and address imbalances inherent in all systems of power. To grapple with those issues requires you speak about them with a strong voice, not diminish them.

If these false schisms continue we're going to get even weaker because socio justice and econ justice are the bedrock of liberal principles.

[JCanete]

67. pointing out that they are thinking about it wrong is not the problem, nor should you have

gotten that from my post, since I said we need to show them they are being played. I did not at all suggest that it was more important to sympathize with these people, since we are talking about effectively and successfully undoing what has been done. I don't agree that there is a path forward that doesn't break the stranglehold on the message that big money has, and if you don't take on big money, it doesn't matter if white people will soon enough if not already, be the minority...a new way of dividing people on social lines will emerge or resurface, because there is a financial and power oriented incentive to make that happen. If we don't take away some of that power, and just fight our battles at the bottom against the ignorant masses we are going to continue to lose on class and social issues. We are paying no attention to the man behind the curtain.

So yes, of course these attitudes have been nurtured, but what are the power-bases role in that nurturing, and furthermore, what was the underlying agenda? What is the value they see in this? Sure, there are actually racist people and that is so much a part of their identity that it dictates their actions, but more often than not, its mostly about retaining power, and retaining and amassing more wealth. Make them the reason people are suffering and with that, deflate the nonsense people are grasping at to make sense of their world. Give them something that they can imagine actually helping them and they won't need to just lash out at the "culprit." They'll accept this new culprit in its place because there is an actual prize to be had...that's assuming we present such legislation and blame the people who are in the pockets of corporations on those things being blocked.

[JHan]

69. so ....

what is your beef with the OP again ?

[JCanete]

71. that I dont know who its addressing here? Its a suggestion that some of us, and I'm not sure who,

are trying to bury social issues in favor of class issues. As I already asked, who is doing that on the left?

[JHan]

73. really?

I am not going to rehash quotes from a certain individual here to prove any point.

The idea of separating social issues from economic concerns isn't some new invention, it has been a meme in existence since the 70s - a conservative meme.

[JCanete]

76. It is a conservative meme, that I again, double down on, is not being borrowed by Sanders

or liberals. That isn't his record. His platform and policies again, have been ahead of the curve. You can't gloss over that fact. He has gotten it right on social issues before the Democratic party at large has far too often, and for that matter, most of its prominent leaders individually. I know what language you are objecting to, and I'm not of the opinion that it is suing for a separation of these issues at all, and in fact, when he talks about them, he suggests that you can't do one without the other...you can't simply be selling that you are a candidate of a diverse base and America without actually fighting for those causes, which includes in a big way, issues of class.

[JHan]

77. you do realise..

the OP is not about Sanders right?

The OP is addressing this schism - caused by the emergence again of this destructive meme ( though we have Sanders' rhetoric partly to thank for that...) . But this is beyond him.

And Sanders is not the first person to talk about important issues, he is not Jesus. There's been a lot of discussion about how to make college and healthcare , for example, more affordable for decades - the question was never whether those things should be made affordable, but HOW to implement policy change that will be lasting and sustainable over time ( with improvements)- that sort of discussion is not slogan friendly or easy to get a handle on..

[JCanete]

79. when I said who is doing this, who were you referencing? I got the impression you were referencing

Sanders, but if that's not the case, its hard to have a discussion if you aren't going to point me in the right direction.

No, the discussion on so many of these issues has languished for decades. Sanders didn't invent any of them. Sanders, in large part, by the serendipity of being a senator in the small state of Vermont has not just the passion, but yes, the luxury to continue to try to remind us that these issues are important and shouldn't be lost or put off for some future date. They could be done if just the members of our party had the will do have done it. We did once have congress and the White House. The American people would have been better off for such legislation and it would have been even harder to attack these things than it has been to attack Obamacare, since we made Obamacare weaker than it could and should have been, and thus, usable as a tool against Democrats--and possibly, not sustainable because of it?

If we actually promoted these things in solidarity...you know, these things that the American people when polled show they want, maybe we could also win more elections.

[JHan]

81. I didn't need Sanders to tell me the importance of these issues..

I've been politically aware of these for a while now, I've thought about them.. I grew up aware of them. We need voices talking about them, but more importantly we need a clear plan and good policy to implement ideas - that's what I'm interested in.

Asking "who is doing this?" is a strange thing to ask , clearly you know it is happening, which is why you commented, and you noted in your replies that this meme has been around for a while.

So once again, I am not getting why you're taking issue with the OP.

[Solly Mack]

49. K&R

[Warpy]

51. Why do conservatives always insist that it's either/or?

It is absolutely not. They're intertwined.

[Hekate]

53. As you can see from this thread, Warpy, it's not just conservatives nt

[Lunabell]

59. WHY THE FUCK CAN'T WE HAVE BOTH?!?!?

Yes, I'm yelling it pisses me off that people think we have to chose one over the other!

[boston bean]

89. We could for ALL if social justice comes first.

This seems to be a point many miss.

[YCHDT]

106. Right I don't see how this simplicity is so missed!!!!

[Orsino]

60. The nation with the courage to secure one will also be securing the other.

That's the reason the two are inextricable.

[brer cat]

66. Excellent OP, sheshe.

Thank you. K&R

[ismnotwasm]

93. Justice doesn't exist without social justice

Everything that works having to do with the concept of justice springs from a basic idea--you know that one in our constitution? "That all men are created equal" only, human beings as bigoted as we can be, impose hierarchical standards on ourselves and call them laws.

And laws have consequences.

For instance, the anti-choice people think that a fetus is worth more than a woman, which progresses to a woman being secondary under all circumstances. This is an ingrained and basic bigotry that goes back millennia, it's found in the words of our greatest philosophers, it's in the cultural freight in our languages.

If and when and where, abortion is illegal, yes poor women will suffer much more, but all women will suffer--or perhaps internalize the standard of injustice that is set.

[sheshe2]

95. "Justice doesn't exist without social justice"

Thank you ism.

Economic justice is unjust unless it applies to all equally.

Quote:

=======================

"For instance, the anti-choice people think that a fetus is worth more than a woman, which progresses to a woman being secondary under all circumstances. This is an ingrained and basic bigotry that goes back millennia, it's found in the words of our greatest philosophers, it's in the cultural freight in our languages."

========================

Sadly they want us to be secondary for all eternity. No economic justice will change that. We are all equal under the law, or we are not and that is a fact.

We should never be asked to sit back and wait for both economic justice or social justice. Trickle down has never worked and it will not work here. I do not want to hear, give me mine and you, perhaps, someday will get yours if we allow it.

[ismnotwasm]

100. Exactly!

And I deliberately used abortion as an example to showcase where this "economic justice" has fatal flaws.

[sheshe2]

103. I love your wisdom, ism.

Luv ya as well. Thank you.

[pirateshipdude]

101. It is very clear and simple Sheshe2. I have to believe those that still cannot grasp what is being

said are of the Sanders ilk that focus exclusively on the middle/working class.

“Everything I’m telling you may end up being wrong,” Bernie Sanders,

“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”

Sanders is not focusing on the unlevel playing field so many have to weave themselves thru. But those that have a straight path.

[sheshe2]

123. Your post is spot on.

Thank you, pirateshipdude.

[NYResister]

122. K&R

[ZX86]

125. Divisive post.

Makes as much sense as saying we have to address racism before we address sexism. Or we have to address clean water first. Clean air can come second. Or lets once and for all settle which was worst, slavery or the Holocaust.

These kind of discussions are unnecessary and counter productive.

[killbotfactory]

126. Take economic justice off the table, and you make elections exclusively about social justice.

So elections then amount to a referendum on the nation's views on race, abortion, guns, etc.

Does that seem like a winning strategy?

Why would you take economic justice off the table, unless You're trying to court corporations and million dollar a plate donors?

[ZX86]

128. I can see it now.

Elections based exclusively on parental teenage abortion notification, reparations for slavery, and transgender bathrooms.

Taking the powerhouse weapon of economic equality away from Democrats in the war against Republicans is insane. It's preemptive surrender is what it is.

[Demsrule86]

138. yeah...those pesky human rights issue...just get in the way...sarcasm.